Intellectual Property – Post-Trial
November 8, 2013
Publication| Intellectual Property
Judge Sleet Denies Post-Trial Motions and Declines to Award Attorneys’ Fees
In Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp. et al., C.A. No. 10-593-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2013), Chief Judge Sleet denied certain post-trial motions on infringement and validity and declined to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court concluded that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence on the infringement and validity issues and denied the request for attorneys’ fees after finding that plaintiff’s “conduct in [the] case [did] not rise to a level of bad faith or vexatious litigation that warrants an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Judge Robinson Issues Post-Trial Opinion
In Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al. v. Lupin Limited et al., C.A. No. 11-271-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2013), Judge Robinson found that the ANDA product directly infringed certain claims of the patent, but held that the same claims that were infringed were also invalid for obviousness.
Judge Robinson Issues Post-Trial Decision on Validity and Infringement
In Cephalon Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 11-164-SLR (D. Del. July 22, 2013), Judge Robinson found that defendant’s products practiced “each and every requirement of the disputed limitations” contained in certain patents and that defendant was liable for indirect infringement of certain patents. With respect to validity, Judge Robinson found that certain patents were not invalid for anticipation or obviousness.